Adriana Renteria, director of the State Water Resources Control Board’s Office of Public Participation, opened a long discussion on December 11 about what the state board — and the SAFER program — should do to help households that rely on domestic wells and state small water systems.

Assistant Deputy Director Andrew Elszvogt told the advisory group that “domestic wells are privately owned wells that can either supply water to individual homes or less than 5 connections,” and that state authority over those wells is limited. He said state small water systems (generally 5–14 connections) and domestic wells are eligible for SB 200 funding for emergency and interim solutions and consolidation, but that the primary legal accountability for domestic wells rests at the county and property‑owner level.

Why it matters: thousands of Californians rely on privately owned wells or very small systems; staff and advisory members said gaps in data, funding and local capacity leave many households without reliable, safe water and that the state must define what it can do within its legal limits.

State staff reviewed the existing evidence and programs. Elszvogt and other staff noted a State Water Board aquifer‑risk mapping effort and a needs assessment that estimated about $5,000,000,000 in statewide costs to address high‑risk domestic‑well water quality and supply problems. Elszvogt told the group that counties are required by SB 200 to submit domestic‑well water‑quality data to the board but that, in practice, “Unfortunately, almost no county has submitted data. I think we have about 3 or 4 data points for that.”

Division of Drinking Water supervising engineer Chad Fisher outlined work already under way on point‑of‑use and point‑of‑entry solutions and related pilots. “A point of entry device would be before that pipe gets to the house or as it gets to the house, all of the water would be treated in this point of entry treatment device,” Fisher said. “And then point of use is a smaller little treatment device, and it’s usually in the kitchen, usually next to the kitchen sink and installed kind of under the sink with a with a separate tap.” Fisher described pilots to develop certification standards, user education materials and operator training pathways.

Advisory members pressed staff on practical priorities. Chelsea Tu of Monterey Waterkeeper said, “It just seems like that’s a a key gap that has been missing,” when referring to county water‑quality reporting and urged state and local cooperation to increase sampling and sharing. Kristen Dobbin (UC Berkeley/UC ANR) said the group first needs “better understanding” of what individual programs are already doing before the board prescribes new priorities: “I don’t think we have a clear enough idea yet of, like, how all these programs are serving domestic wells.”

Several members urged the board to set measurable targets. Eric Woriano of Community Water Center asked the board to “set a benchmark for the number of communities that are not currently receiving TA to receive TA by the end of the SAFER program,” and to set goals for consolidations, sampling and durable decentralized solutions where consolidation is not feasible. Eva Dominguez of Self Help Enterprises emphasized that different solutions require different levels of staff time and funding: creating a new small water system is more resource‑intensive than extending service from an existing system.

Members highlighted social and political obstacles to consolidation and reporting. Michael Prado Sr., Sultana Community Services District president, told staff bluntly: “quit taking on so many projects and get the ones that you already have started,” reflecting frustration that long‑running local consolidation efforts remain under construction while new projects are started. Rob Burrows, a Tehama County resident, said many domestic‑well owners worry that reporting or engagement will invite unwelcome regulation: “Their biggest concern is big brother’s looking at them and they’re going to take their water and they’re going to charge them for water that’s in the ground already.”

What the board will do next: staff said they will prepare a clearer written framework of the board’s role on domestic wells and state small systems, return to the advisory group with a draft in 2025 and consider a deeper dive on point‑of‑use/point‑of‑entry pilots, tribal system engagement and case studies such as East Porterville.

Ending: Advisory members and staff agreed on three near‑term priorities for the board to pursue: (1) a public‑facing description of what the State Water Board can do versus what counties or owners control; (2) practical benchmarks for technical assistance, sampling and consolidation work; and (3) clearer coordination with the Department of Water Resources, local governments and technical assistance providers to improve data collection and delivery of interim solutions.